Cross-border leasing

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cross-border leasing ( CBL ) is a type of leasing in which the lessor and the lessee are based in different countries and the lessee contractually transfers assets to the lessor as (beneficial) ownership , but may continue to use them as the lessee. In a broader sense, every leasing business across national borders is a CBL, even if it is de facto no different from normal leasing. CBL was developed in the USA and is currently used in Germany , Great Britain , Japan , Swedenand Austria applied.

General

The prerequisite is that the tax and legal relationships of two countries are compatible and allow such contracts. The different regulations in the countries concerned lead to the fiction of two taxable owners of the same leasing object, which means that both the lessee and the lessor can write off the same object . Due to the international transaction, lease payments are made across borders. The main purpose of these predominantly tax-motivated transactions is to achieve a net present value advantage of approx. 5% of the transaction through tax deferral effects. From 1995 onwards, municipalities increasingly used this financing instrument in order to generate budget income through this cash value advantage.

Basic definition

As a special form of leasing, CBL is structured finance . There are more than 70 contracts that are concluded together as part of an overall plan and are only effective as a whole. The CBL with the USA is particularly well known. Their tax regulations allowed long-term rent to be treated like property. The contracts are concluded in New York, as contracts in this state still exist if it is subsequently found that they violate US law. This choice of law alone illustrates the uncertainty of those involved about the long-term effectiveness of the chosen form of design.

Participants and terms

There is the lessor, mostly investors with legal seat in the USA; the lessee, usually a municipality, and the trust , into which the leased objects are brought in as separate assets.

  • Arranger ( English arranger ) is the intermediary company between the parties to a CBL transaction, which may also be active as an investor. As a rule, the arranger is a subsidiary of internationally operating banks or groups.
  • The trust is the actual contractual partner of the municipality. It is an independent company (special fund) in the legal form of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) based in Delaware (95% of all trusts) or Connecticut (5%).
  • Municipalities or municipal associations in Germany or other countries bring Municipal Property ( English leasehold interest ) in the transaction.
  • Enrollment Agreement ( English head user agreement ) is the obligation of the original plant owner (Municipality), the facility for 125 to 150% of the remaining useful life determined by appraisers - usually about 100 years old - to the Trust for rent.
  • The sublease or return lease ( English user lease agreement ) grants the municipality the right of use for 50% of the remaining useful life (mostly 25-30 years) by the trust.
  • Transaction volume is the financial scope of the CBL based on an appraisal of the leased item. The present value benefit is the amount of money that flows to the lessee after the contract has been concluded (approx. 5% of the transaction volume).
  • International law firms work out the bundle of contracts, often over 1500 pages, and advise the parties involved.

Due to the large number of participants, the selected contract structure and the various payment flows, this is structured financing.

Tax law

In many countries, tax regulations regulate who a leased item is to be assigned to. This allocation depends on who has to capitalize the item in their balance sheet and then can reduce profit through impairment or depreciation . This regulation sometimes results in different property attributions according to tax and civil law. Depending on the contract structure, a leased item can be assigned to the lessor or the lessee. In Germany, the following must be observed for attribution:

  • In any case: Share of the basic rental period in the total useful life of the property.
  • In the case of a purchase option, the relationship between the remaining purchase price and the linear book value of the item is decisive .
  • In the case of the rent extension option, the relationship between the subsequent rent and the straight-line depreciation of the property is decisive.
  • Items specially manufactured for the lessee or adapted to their circumstances must always be capitalized by the lessee.

More details are regulated by decrees published in the Federal Tax Gazette .

In Germany, the lessee can capitalize an item on the balance sheet if the basic rental period is less than 40% or more than 90% of the useful life (and the leasing contract does not include any option). In other countries this can be regulated differently, so that the lessor can activate the thing there.

In particular, the regulation on special objects seems suitable for creating contractual structures with activation on both sides.

character

The different tax regulations of the countries lead to the fiction of two tax owners of one and the same property, who now both write off the same property for tax purposes at the same time - in accordance with the laws of their home country . With this construction, both "tenants" and "landlords" can write off the leased item for tax purposes and thereby generate tax-deductible expenses. Since the American side can post the depreciation without real acquisition costs , it is a pure tax-saving model. The American side shares part of the tax savings with the lessee. These are often cities and municipalities in Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium or the Netherlands. The municipality receives a maximum of two to eight percent of the total transaction volume, the so-called " cash value advantage ".

Numerous European municipalities were able - for the time being - to improve their budgets with the CBL. Around 150 German cities - more than in any other country in the European Union - have concluded cross-border leasing transactions; the estimates of the total volume of these businesses vary between 30 and 80 billion euros. It is estimated that between 1995 and 2004 the German cities were able to achieve a cash value advantage of around one billion euros. In 2004, new contracts were no longer recognized for tax purposes in the USA. In 2005 the US tax authorities published statements according to which CBL is to be viewed as an abusive tax avoidance and the tax advantages are not granted for the CBL transactions concluded in the past either.

Content of the contract

Objects, contract practice and contract types

As a rule, a minimum value of EUR 150 million is currently envisaged. Until 1999, the contract type was primarily "lease in lease out", after that the contract type was exclusively "lease and service contract". In the first, for example, trams were sold and leased back, in the second, the public infrastructure is leased for 100 years and at the same time leased back for a shorter period (24–30 years).

In practice, municipal sewage treatment plants , sewer systems , thermal power stations , drinking water systems , trams and subways , rail networks , exhibition halls and schools are rented to US companies for a term of up to 100 years and then rented back immediately. The American investor pays the rent in one amount for the entire rental period. In the USA this is considered an “ investment ” and enables depreciation .

With around 70 CBL contracts per transaction, the municipal facilities are rented to the trust for around 99 years (main rent) and at the same time rented back to the municipality for around 29 years (rent back). At the end of the return lease period, the municipality has the option of acquiring the right of use granted to the trust by the main rent at a fixed price agreed at the beginning of the transaction. When the municipality exercises this option, the main lease expires due to confusion , which ends the entire transaction. There is no transfer of ownership of the communal facilities to the trust by relocation and entry in the land register (§§ 873, 925 BGB). Ownership of the systems has not passed to the trust even under the contractually agreed US law. This already results from the fact that the annexes according to Art. 43 Para. 1 EGBGB are not subject to US law but solely to national law and the contracting parties cannot deviate from the so-called law of the location by choosing another law. Incidentally, the CBL contracts do not include the transfer of ownership, but only the rental of the communal property. The fact that the trust can nevertheless write off the rented communal facilities for tax purposes results from the fact that, from the point of view of US tax law, a legal position comparable to that of German beneficial ownership arises with a correspondingly long-term rental. The direct possession, danger, benefits and burdens of the facilities also remain with the municipality, which thus exercises actual control over the facilities. Also, the beneficial ownership of the equipment rests with the municipality. The latter transferred all rights of use to the trust, but immediately - after a legal second - received it back with the same content. In addition, it is logically possible that in cross-border legal transactions there is a double assignment of beneficial ownership and thus a double write-off option for the same asset is opened up. Economic property is not an object that can exist only once in the real world. Rather, it is a tax law term that is linked to certain conditions. These prerequisites can be defined differently by the individual legal systems , so that beneficial ownership can exist in two places at the same time, taking into account the respective national legal provisions.

The municipality provides the rent for the entire term plus surrender value from the advance rent payments received from the American investor to a bank. The latter pays the current rent to the American investor and the surrender value at the end of the rental period. The advantage of the municipality lies in the difference between the rent prepayments received and the rent prepayments made including the surrender value. It can therefore be seen as a special form of sale-lease-back financing (for communities) that makes it possible to convert existing fixed assets into current assets without having to give up the use of the thing. For municipalities, the payment for the short to medium-term restructuring of their budgets is the only meaning.

The trust does not invest in the properties, but uses tax law in the USA to its advantage; his designation as an investor is therefore misleading. According to German law, the US company is only a tenant and landlord at the same time. The US company does not have to make new investments in the system during the term, but rather the municipality must ensure that the system fulfills its contractually agreed purpose over the entire period. The US “investor”, for his part, must provide his tax office with proof annually that the plant is intact. This is not without problems due to the long contract terms.

The previous owner now has numerous long-term claims that are secured by a lien : according to American tax law, “beneficial ownership ” is sufficient. So there are two owners, which creates a certain risk of loss. According to German treaties, the municipality remains the owner and according to US law, the US trust becomes the beneficial owner. The USA is specified as the place of jurisdiction in all contracts . However, it is regularly not the practice to translate the complex contracts into German or to inform the public or city councils about details.

Terms and costs

The long running times are considered a disadvantage. These are not so much the hundred years of letting, but the long re-leasing of up to 30 years. During this period, all obligations and restrictions agreed upon when the contract was concluded must be observed. On the one hand, the systems must not be downsized or redimensioned, so they must not, above all, become cheaper. On the other hand, all banks involved must continue to exist and retain the prescribed rating . All subsequent changes are at the expense of the municipalities and they also bear all associated risks.

In some negotiations, the municipalities bore the entire cost risk as to whether the CBL would actually be concluded. If they wanted to get out before the contract was signed, they had to pay all the bills. After the failure of preliminary negotiations, the city of Aachen had to pay 19 million marks to banks, law firms and other consultants. In many cases, however, the municipalities did not face any cost risk. If the CBL did not come to a conclusion, all lawyers had to bear their own costs or these were borne by the banks.

Jurisdiction USA

When choosing the law , the contracting parties decide on the law of New York City with New York as the place of jurisdiction . New York law is particularly suitable because in New York a possible tax ban on contracts allows them to be recognized under New York law under civil law.

However, in any dispute regarding rights and obligations, the lessee must consult American lawyers. In disputes with the American side, the municipality has the great disadvantage that it would have to sue their courts. A foreign municipality that sues about a tax-saving model will hardly enjoy any special protection in American courts. The question is whether the municipality could argue that the contracts are ineffective under their law, since the supervisory authority has not received effective approval.

When it comes to the tax question of whether the specific CBL contract is recognized for tax purposes in the USA and who is to blame for non-recognition and thus all the consequences, the American tax authorities and tax courts are also exclusively responsible. The municipality is not involved in this and has no opportunity to intervene in this respect.

Returns and Costs

The returns from the CBL do not arise due to concrete added value , but through the losses of the US Treasury and are financed by the taxpayers there. Due to this foreign "investment", German banks can reduce their tax burden in Germany. You also earn on the given credit.

The tax savings of financial investors amounted to around 8 to 10% of the transaction volume per year, with a term of 30 years that makes a total of 300%.

The so-called transaction costs in cross-border leasing transactions amount to around 10% of the transaction volume. About 4% of this goes to the cities as a cash value advantage and a total of 6% as fees to the loan and debt assumption banks, to the arrangers of the investment funds and the lawyers. With a transaction volume of 300 million euros, for example, the city would receive 12 million euros, the banks 12 million euros and the lawyers 6 million euros.

The costs, which are incurred, among other things, in the form of fees for the law firms involved or commissions for arrangers, are therefore usually higher than the amount that is overall beneficial for the participating municipality in Europe.

history

Cross-border leasing transactions were initially primarily for the purpose of aircraft financing. Originally, this design was intended to finance Boeing aircraft sales and not to the benefit of European lessees. CBL has been around since 1984 and was initially named after US Senator James Jarrell Pickle . The so-called "Pickle Lease" or "Replacement Lease" was the basic form as it existed until 1994. According to this, a US investor was able to write off the assets of domestic and foreign lessees for tax purposes with a lease term of up to 99 years with a certain contract structure. A tightening of the law restricted this option to foreign lessees, so that from 1995 the term "cross border sale and lease back" came up. From 1996 onwards there was a general agreement on "lease in lease out" (LiLo), which instead of transferring beneficial ownership was based on transferring the right to use the asset ("leasehold interest"). After the resulting tax advantages were withdrawn, there has been talk of the "Lease and Service Contract" or CBL since 1999. The consequence, however, was not the abolition of the CBL, but a change to the service contract structure. European municipalities in particular began to improve their desolate budget situation through CBL from 1995 onwards. Most of the time, they lease material assets (infrastructure systems such as trams, underground trains, sewer networks, waste incineration plants) in order to generate the highest possible cash value advantages based on the book value. In North Rhine-Westphalia alone, at least 19 transactions were carried out between 1997 and 2002, in the course of which the municipalities are likely to have generated special income of around EUR 345.5 million. Leased were u. a. the Dortmund Westfalenhalle , the Cologne trams as well as sewage treatment plants and sewer networks in the cities of Bonn, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Gelsenkirchen, Recklinghausen and Wuppertal.

The sale-and-lease-back-like constructions were declared illegal bogus transactions by the US tax authorities in March 2004 and were completely banned in October 2008. In the opinion of the tax authorities, the investor did not assume any leasing-specific risks, but was only interested in the tax advantage. The applicable law of the state of New York now has an effect here, as it does not allow such tax nullity to affect the effectiveness under civil law. While the risk of these tax changes lies with US investors, it is believed that they are looking for civil exit options. The risk of losses for municipalities cannot therefore be ruled out.

Problem

Originally, the present value advantage that arises at the CBL was understood as payment without consideration. The leased systems remain in Germany, can and must continue to be operated and would have to be replaced without prior CBL in the event of a loss. Accordingly, every present value advantage, even if it is rather low in relation to the value of the leased item, means that CBL is advantageous.

In the meantime, this view has changed. It is recognized that the CBL contracts restrict the municipalities by a large number of restrictions and approval reservations and that the contracts therefore represent a considerable burden from an economic point of view. In addition, there are the risks that the municipalities will be liable for damages in the event of a breach of contract, and other burdens from future withholding taxes , other taxes and other costs. The municipalities often lack specialists who understand the extensive, intricate, English-language CBL contracts. In order not to violate contractual obligations, a very comprehensive contract controlling must be set up. This requires the involvement of external specialists, who are very expensive. Furthermore, the municipalities are obliged to monitor the creditworthiness of the banks and insurance companies that secure the CBL business throughout the term of the contracts. If their rating goes down, the cities have to negotiate with lawyers in the US and find new banks and insurance companies with a sufficient rating within 90 days. If they fail to do this, the business has to be reversed if necessary, which can result in losses in the millions for the municipalities. Such follow-up costs were often not taken into account when the contract was concluded and were culpably deliberately suppressed when decisions were made.

In addition, there is a lack of transparency and democracy in the implementation of CBL. The city councils only receive so-called "transaction descriptions" from the lawyers involved. The local political intervention is rated by critics of globalization as extraordinarily high and has similar consequences as the GATS treaties. A ban on the CBL contracts was also discussed in the CSU ; for the former Minister of the Interior Günther Beckstein , CBL business is “right on the verge of legality . "

At least when the contract was signed, the cities believed in a purely sham contract, which one no longer has to worry about after signing. The risks inherent in the long contract only become apparent later. Spread over 30 years, the cash value advantage is often hardly higher than the annual administrative costs.

Effects in the USA

In the course of the Iraq war, the USA criticized France and Germany for blocking themselves against the Iraq war , but letting the American taxpayers finance their own infrastructure. The spokesman in particular was Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa , who called for an immediate and retroactive ban on CBL to Europe. In the American press, too, the CBL structures were portrayed as sham deals with no economic content. In the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004", CBL contracts that are newly concluded after March 12, 2004 are prohibited. In 2005, the US tax authorities ( IRS ) determined that previous leasing transactions were to be viewed as tax evasion . In contrast to the change in the law in 2004, this applies in particular to all old contracts. The tax advantage sought with the transaction is therefore not achievable.

Criminal law consideration

The criminal law issues related to cross-border leasing have not yet been clarified. The previous constructions are examined primarily from the point of view of breach of trust (§ 266 StGB), committed by the state and local decision-makers who are responsible for the contracts concluded. In risky transactions, which are immanent with the risk of loss, there are special problems because the perpetrator usually acted with knowledge of the risk situation.

Examples

Germany

Country / City / Municipality description
State of Baden-Württemberg In Baden-Württemberg in 2001, the state water supply had leased its entire pipeline network and all waterworks to a US trust for a net present value of 24.68 million euros for 99 years, while the Lake Constance water supply had its entire pipeline network and all waterworks for 34.68 million euros net - Present value advantage rented to a US trust for 99 years. However, these contracts were terminated early by mutual agreement as of April 2009. There remained a net loss of 4.7 million euros at BWV and 8.4 million euros at LW. Ultimately, however, (according to the press release of the water supplier) at least the German tax authorities benefited, as around 20 million euros in taxes were paid in 2001 and 2002.
Bergisch Gladbach In Bergisch Gladbach, the wastewater works, including the entire sewer network, was to be subject to a CBL contract. A citizens 'initiative initiated by Attac was joined by other regional citizens' initiatives, DGB and BUND, as well as the oppositional council parties. The citizens' initiative forced a formal referendum after a referendum . The citizens of Bergisch Gladbach decided in September 2003 in a ballot box with 96.5% against the CBL deal and brought the project down. Since it was possible to exceed the legal quorum in Bergisch Gladbach , this referendum is valid as a decision for the city according to the NRW municipal code.
Berlin In Berlin there are such contracts for 377 underground and 134 tram cars . In November 2008, a risk provision of 157 million euros was added to the BVG 's balance sheet to cover possible damage.
Bochum In Bochum, the red-green council initiated a contract on the sewer network. The efforts of an initiative supported by Attac Bochum and Bochumer Mieterverein resulted in 15,000 signatures from Bochum's citizens in spring 2003. When the American contract partner hesitated, Ottilie Scholz , at that time treasurer of the city of Bochum, looked for and found another partner. The contract partner is allegedly First Fidelity International , an offshoot of Wachovia Corporation , North Carolina , USA. The contract is said to have 1700 pages. The place of jurisdiction is New York. The volume is 500 million euros. The Bochum city council deals with the topic mostly only to the exclusion of the public. On December 19, 2008, the WDR reported a "mess" for the city of Bochum. The contract had to be secured with a loan of 90 million euros because the credit rating of the American insurance group AIG had been downgraded. Failure to do so would have resulted in a fine of 360 million euros. The decision-makers admitted that they had not read the original contract. In 2009 the contract was withdrawn, but liabilities remained.
Dortmund In Dortmund, the Dortmunder Stadtwerke (now: DSW21 ) made the first deal in December 1997 when they sold the light rail vehicle fleet for 13.4 million euros. The Westfalenhalle brought 8 million euros as a "cash value advantage". The immobile light rail systems (stops and routes) each brought in a good 30 million euros for the city and municipal utilities. In total, the proceeds should have amounted to 100 million euros.
Dresden In Dresden, trams and sewage treatment plants were sold and leased back (volume 480 million dollars).
Duisburg Rail network and parts of the subway stations in Duisburg generated 49 million dollars (according to other sources 35.3 million dollars) net proceeds.
Dusseldorf In Dusseldorf, the wastewater systems worth a billion dollars are affected by a CBL contract. The urban rail network of the Rheinbahn is also part of a CBL contract.
eat The EVAG rail network and the exhibition building in Essen (volume 300 million dollars) belong to US investors for 90 million euros. The Emschergenossenschaft , based in Essen, signed a contract for its large sewage treatment plant (volume 480 million dollars).
Gelsenkirchen The sewer network in Gelsenkirchen was sold for 21 million euros in mid-2002, and 31 schools and other public buildings at the end of 2002.
Herten The AGR waste disposal company Ruhrgebiet sold the RZR I in Herten in 2003 and leased it back at the same time. In 2009 the transaction was effectively terminated; the economic advantage of 16 million euros remains with AGR mbH and RVR .
Cologne The City Council of Cologne decided in February 2000 to conclude a contract with First Fidelity International Bank (a company of the First Union Group) for four sewage treatment plants (transaction volume 1.25 billion DM) over a period of 24 years. The net proceeds of the city of Cologne when the transaction was completed in April 2000 amounted to 54 million DM.
Koenigswinter In 2003, Königswinter, like Eitorf, sold and rented its sewage treatment plants and the sewage network, which Königswinter brought in 3 million euros.
Leipzig In Leipzig, between 1996 and 2005, parts of the Leipziger Verkehrsbetriebe LVB (rail network, vehicles), the congress hall , exhibition halls , the St. Georg municipal clinic , and significant parts of the municipal waterworks Leipzig KWL (sewage treatment plants, drinking water system, sewer network) became CBL stores with a total of billions of dollars. Leipzig was at times referred to as a CBL capital . Further financial speculations carried out in this regard, e.g. B. with the Swiss bank UBS, led to further substantial losses.

In mid-2011, the city announced that one of LVB's CBL deals ( ... relating to the rail network ... ) worth USD 722 million had been prematurely terminated . At the end of 2011, the LVB published that all LVB CBL contracts had been terminated by mutual agreement
Mannheim In Mannheim, the sewage treatment plant and large parts of the urban sewer network were rented to the US insurance company John Hancock ( taken over by the insurance company Manulife Financial in 2004 ). The investment value was 742 million euros; the city of Mannheim collected 21 million euros, the threading financial service providers over 30 million euros.
Munich In 1999, trams and underground trains (unknown size) were leased in Munich, after which further contracts were blocked by critics. Information on the details by the mayor was even refused to the city council in 2008 with reference to the confidentiality obligation agreed with the CBL investors.
Muenster Business in Münster was stopped by a referendum organized by the red-green opposition.
Nuremberg At the end of 1998, 66 underground and tram cars were sold to an American financial institution in Nuremberg for DM 17 million and rented back, and a year later the sewer network and sewage treatment plant.
Recklinghausen 4.6 million euros flowed into the budget of the city of Recklinghausen through a deal via the sewer network. The council had rejected a referendum. In the Ruhr region was as a citizens' initiative , the Working Group against municipal sell- founded. Under this title, critics gather against what they consider to be "risky sham deals with tax tricks". It was secured by the American International Group .
Schwerin The Schwerin water system is owned by a US insurance company. The cause is a so-called cross-border leasing contract that the city signed on June 7, 2002 with the John Hancock Life Insurance Company . The term of the contract is 99 years. With this contract Schwerin sold public property to a foreign investor and immediately rented it back. Affected are the wastewater systems of the Schwerin wastewater disposal (SAE) and the water supply systems of the water supply and wastewater disposal Schwerin GmbH (SWS / WAG). Schwerin received around 580 million euros for this deal, of which a cash value advantage of around 10 million euros remained.
Ulm In Ulm, the sewage network, a sewage treatment plant and a waste-to-energy plant were leased to PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. in Pittsburgh.

Austria

In Austria , the CBL transactions carried out up to 2004 have reached a volume of around twenty billion euros, according to an estimate by Kommunalkredit, which conducts such transactions. The Court of Auditors assumed around 18 billion.

The objects of the contract are / were mostly parts of the state and city infrastructure, but also real estate and facilities of private and state-related companies:

The cross-border leasing transactions were viewed critically in some reports by the Court of Auditors, particularly with regard to the risks and usage restrictions. In the meantime, such contracts have also been terminated.

Switzerland

  • In Zurich (water supply, EWZ , VBZ and SZU ) there are CBL contracts for assets valued at around CHF 1563 million. The successful termination of leasing transactions via VBZ rolling stock with an asset value of 357 resulted in costs of 3.8 million francs. The total profit fell from CHF 24.4 million to CHF 22 million.

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Klaus Ulrich Groth / Rainer Schreiber (eds.), Scientia Nova , Volume 14, 2010, p. 37 f.
  2. ↑ Holger Zoubek, Modern Financing Strategies in the Structure of Municipal Financial Constitutions , 2011, p. 80.
  3. ↑ Roland Kirbach: Cross-Border-Leasing - Sold for stupid. In: DIE ZEIT, March 12, 2009 zeit.de
  4. ↑ Otto Palandt : Commentary BGB. 67th edition. 2007, Art. 42 EGBGB, No. 3
  5. ^ Stuttgart Administrative Court, judgment of January 10, 2008, Az .: 1 K 1259/06
  6. ↑ Werner Rügemer : Captivating contracts. In: young world . February 7, 2002 ( online ( Memento from December 2, 2002 in the Internet Archive ))
  7. ↑ cf. Werner Rügemer, Cross Border Leasing: A Lesson on the Global Expropriation of Cities , 2005, p. 20.
  8. ↑ cf. Werner Rügemer, Cross Border Leasing: A Lesson on the Global Expropriation of Cities , 2005, p. 69.
  9. ↑ Christian Jahndorf: Fundamentals of public financing through loans and alternative forms of financing in constitutional and European law , 2003, p. 336.
  10. ↑ Werner Rügemer: Cross-Border-Leasing - A lesson on the global expropriation of cities. 2004, p. 181 ff.
  11. ↑ Roland Kirbach: Cross-Border-Leasing: Sold for stupid, in: Die Zeit, March 12, 2009.
  12. ↑ Press release of the Bavarian State Chancellery ( Memento of October 12, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  13. ↑ irs.gov
  14. ↑ Stuttgart Water Forum
  15. ↑ Lesson - due to the financial crisis, »cross-border leasing« like the Lake Constance water supply goes into a tailspin ( memento of the original from July 14, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.gea.de
  16. ↑ BWV: Cross-border leasing is history . Message from April 9th, 2009  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.zvbwv.de  
  17. ↑ Citizens' decision Bergisch Gladbach - GL - September 21, 2003 ( Memento of the original from June 12, 2004 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.buergerentscheid-gl.de
  18. ↑ Peter Neumann: Now there is a risk of high losses. In: Berliner Zeitung . November 14, 2008, accessed June 17, 2015 .
  19. ^ Tenants' Association Bochum, Hattingen and Umgegend eV: November 2003
  20. ↑ Brochure of the Social List, Bochum (PDF; 446 kB)
  21. ↑ Online Flyer No. 178 of December 24, 2008
  22. ↑ gruene-bochum.de  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / gruene-bochum.de  
  23. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from August 24, 2003 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.attac.de
  24. ^ City of Duisburg, Ratsinformationssystem, DS 03-4210 / 6 of December 1, 2003
  25. ↑ Rheinbahn Annual Report 2013, p. 15 rheinbahn.de
  26. ↑ See WDR radio broadcast Hundred Years Like a Day broadcast manuscript for reading (PDF) ( Memento from September 29, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  27. ^ Only Cologne and Bonn did big business. Kölnische Rundschau, September 22, 2003, accessed on April 18, 2016 .
  28. ↑ List of the previously known CBL contracts in leipzig.softwiki.de ( Memento of the original from September 10, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed September 6, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / leipzig.softwiki.de
  29. ↑ Roland Kirbach: Sold for stupid. DIE ZEIT, March 12, 2009, pp. 17–12, dossier online here
  30. ↑ Sonia Shinde: Leipzig waterworks complain about losses of millions. January 18, 2010 in Handelsblatt handelsblatt.com , accessed on September 6, 2012.
  31. ↑ Announcement of the city ​​of Leipzig ( Memento of the original from August 10, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed September 6, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.leipzig.de
  32. ↑ LVB website ( Memento of the original from October 15, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. November 15, 2011, accessed September 6, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.lvb.de
  33. ↑ Is the bank crash affecting the city? ( Memento of the original from October 6, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Mannheim Morning, October 2, 2008. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.morgenweb.de
  34. ↑ Roland Kirbach: Sold for stupid. DIE ZEIT, March 12, 2009, pp. 17–12, dossier online here and subways and trams rented to US investors on March 12, 2009 in the Wochenanzeiger , accessed on September 7, 2012.
  35. ↑ Written request in accordance with § 68 GeschO to the city by the Left Party ( Memento of the original from September 27, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. in September 2008, accessed September 7, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.dielinke-muenchen-stadtrat.de
  36. ↑ Faz.net: Cross-Border-Leasing - Hardly anyone read the fine print of July 10, 2011.
  37. ↑ Press release December 20, 2002 ( Memento of February 13, 2010 on WebCite )
  38. ↑ a b Austrian Court of Auditors: Main problems of public financial control: Cross Border Leasing (PDF; 349 kB)
  39. ↑ 27th meeting of the Vienna City Council on April 23, 2004, Post number 48, verbatim minutes, p. 25 ff.
  40. ↑ Austrian Court of Auditors: Perception report Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG (PDF; 1.6 MB)
  41. ↑ EU-Infothek: Serious criticism from the Court of Auditors and the Control Office of Cross Border Leases ( Memento of the original from October 12, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.eu-infothek.com
  42. ↑ Häupl: Cross-border leasing “purely economical”. In: DiePresse.com , February 7, 2009.
  43. ↑ Martina Madner, Corinna Milborn: cross-border leasing: Linz AG, ÖBB, composite - more and more want to exit. In: Format.at , August 19, 2009.
  44. ↑ Zurich, February 2, 2009 Opinion of the RPK on the cross-border leasing business of the City of Zurich , Zurich City Council February 6, 2009.